3e XP: how fast is too fast?
- Thread starter Sir Edgar
- Start date
Gothmog
First Post
To me, leveling every adventure or every other adventure is just too fast. The characters need time to use and practice their new abilities before new abilities get heaped on them. Not to mention, most players have a hard time thinking about character development and motivations when they are more concerned about which feat or neat-o abilities they will get in X more encounters. I prefer the old 1E and 2E advancement rates- somewhere around 3-5 adventures per level (about 30-60 hours of gaming per level). IMC, I also got rid of the experience table based on CR in the DMG. I give out XP now based on accomplishing goals appropriate to the group's level, not for random slaying of monsters. Its worked well so far, and taken the focus off killing and combat.
Here's how much experience you need to reach the next level:
3e PHB:
* Next level = Your present level x 1000
EQ RPG:
* Next level = Your present level x 2000
2e PHB:
* Next level = Your total experience points x2
So for 3e and EQ, the amount of experience points you need to reach the next level is geometric, but for 2e, it was exponential. (Or whatever the slope descriptions are.)
Haven't checked the rate of XP awards in 2e vs. 3e, tho.
Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^
3e PHB:
* Next level = Your present level x 1000
EQ RPG:
* Next level = Your present level x 2000
2e PHB:
* Next level = Your total experience points x2
So for 3e and EQ, the amount of experience points you need to reach the next level is geometric, but for 2e, it was exponential. (Or whatever the slope descriptions are.)
Haven't checked the rate of XP awards in 2e vs. 3e, tho.
Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^
Nellisir
Hero
I'm deliberately running a fast advancing game, but I don't think they're advancing too fast. Once a week (more or less) gaming, 3-4 hours per session, and they're half-way through 9th level after a year of playing.
I deliberately set most encounters at or very near their level, and use alot of templates and classed NPCs & monsters. I designate (but don't make public to the players) each dungeon as a 1, 2, or 3 level-gain dungeon (haven't done any 3-levellers yet), and then figure out encounters to match. I've not come -anywhere- near an 8-level dungeon, and my mind boggles at the thought. That's, what? 104 separate encounters at your CR? Yikes.
One thing I have noticed -- prestige classes don't mean much until 9th or 10th level. Related to that; one simply has more toys to play with at higher levels. If lower level characters had more choices and options than higher level characters, I'd be more likely to keep the characters at a lower level. As it is, being lower level simply means there are large parts of the PH they never get to use, and large parts of the DMG & MM I never get to use. It'd be very frustrating to look at that stuff and think "Gee, just another 7 years...if my character doesn't die!"
I don't think a 1st level party facing some ordinary orcs is somehow more rewarding, dangerous, or character-building than a 10th level party facing a group of higher-level orcish fighters with sorcerous backup (and if orc sorcerers aren't your thing, substitute any other CR10 encounter). DMed correctly, they should be just as rewarding, dangerous, and character building. If your high level play is all about killing bigger monsters, it's not the level that's at fault. It's the game.
Cheers
Nell.
I deliberately set most encounters at or very near their level, and use alot of templates and classed NPCs & monsters. I designate (but don't make public to the players) each dungeon as a 1, 2, or 3 level-gain dungeon (haven't done any 3-levellers yet), and then figure out encounters to match. I've not come -anywhere- near an 8-level dungeon, and my mind boggles at the thought. That's, what? 104 separate encounters at your CR? Yikes.
One thing I have noticed -- prestige classes don't mean much until 9th or 10th level. Related to that; one simply has more toys to play with at higher levels. If lower level characters had more choices and options than higher level characters, I'd be more likely to keep the characters at a lower level. As it is, being lower level simply means there are large parts of the PH they never get to use, and large parts of the DMG & MM I never get to use. It'd be very frustrating to look at that stuff and think "Gee, just another 7 years...if my character doesn't die!"
I don't think a 1st level party facing some ordinary orcs is somehow more rewarding, dangerous, or character-building than a 10th level party facing a group of higher-level orcish fighters with sorcerous backup (and if orc sorcerers aren't your thing, substitute any other CR10 encounter). DMed correctly, they should be just as rewarding, dangerous, and character building. If your high level play is all about killing bigger monsters, it's not the level that's at fault. It's the game.
Cheers
Nell.
Thorin Stoutfoot
First Post
Nellisur's experience mirror mine
4 hours/session, 1 year of play, middle of 9th level. PC deaths slow down advancement significantly, so I don't have a problem with the so-called "fast" levelling. It's been a level every two or three sessions, which is just fine.
I can't wait to explore the 14th-15th levels. I never got to explore them in 1e, since the levelling was so slow that the campaigns would end before we got there, and this time, we'll actually get there in a reasonable amount of time. Play is also beginning to slow down now that we've hit sections of the players handbook that we've never cracked open before!
4 hours/session, 1 year of play, middle of 9th level. PC deaths slow down advancement significantly, so I don't have a problem with the so-called "fast" levelling. It's been a level every two or three sessions, which is just fine.
I can't wait to explore the 14th-15th levels. I never got to explore them in 1e, since the levelling was so slow that the campaigns would end before we got there, and this time, we'll actually get there in a reasonable amount of time. Play is also beginning to slow down now that we've hit sections of the players handbook that we've never cracked open before!
jgbrowning
Hero
exp
i haven't as of yet reduced the amount of exp i give to my PC, but i will the next game i run, probably down to 1/8th of what is listed in the core books. (my last group gained 5 levels from a dungeon that took them 9 days in game time. and im a pretty rough, uncompromising DM)
the main reason is for world viability issues.
if this group of heros (the PC's) are out adventuring there have to be more of them. if they advance to 20th level in a year and 1/2 of gameplay that is way to fast to maintain any pretense of a coherant world, imho. and once you factor in ressurection you'll pretty soon have a world that is massivly powerful and nothing close to the "basic" 3E DnD setting.
and one of those massive dungeons that crothian was talking about can only take a month or two of game time and result in a 12th level character. Its just to hard for me to accept as a DM.
the other part of it is from the players perspective. I want my players to realize that the fun in the game does not come from leveling and increasing power. sure thats fun but that is a very small part of the fun of the game. the fun in the game is the play. and it doesnt really matter what level you're at.
I like the idea of having players take years of game time to build their way up to a respected level. I think it will lead to a more developed style (ie more fun from an immersive role-play view) of play from my next group of players.
Course, they could just hate me.
just my .002$
joe b.
i haven't as of yet reduced the amount of exp i give to my PC, but i will the next game i run, probably down to 1/8th of what is listed in the core books. (my last group gained 5 levels from a dungeon that took them 9 days in game time. and im a pretty rough, uncompromising DM)
the main reason is for world viability issues.
if this group of heros (the PC's) are out adventuring there have to be more of them. if they advance to 20th level in a year and 1/2 of gameplay that is way to fast to maintain any pretense of a coherant world, imho. and once you factor in ressurection you'll pretty soon have a world that is massivly powerful and nothing close to the "basic" 3E DnD setting.
and one of those massive dungeons that crothian was talking about can only take a month or two of game time and result in a 12th level character. Its just to hard for me to accept as a DM.
the other part of it is from the players perspective. I want my players to realize that the fun in the game does not come from leveling and increasing power. sure thats fun but that is a very small part of the fun of the game. the fun in the game is the play. and it doesnt really matter what level you're at.
I like the idea of having players take years of game time to build their way up to a respected level. I think it will lead to a more developed style (ie more fun from an immersive role-play view) of play from my next group of players.
Course, they could just hate me.
just my .002$
joe b.
Quick point to note:
A few weeks (maybe 5) I started a thread about this subject inspired by a quote in an interview on the WoTC re: City of the Spider Queen.
Apparently, that module takes PCs from 10th to 18th level in 2 months of GAME time, not real time. (ie. 2 month pass in the Forgotten Realms, not two months spent playing the game).
I'm still having trouble getting over this. 8 mid-high levels in 2 months.
Seems a bit... I dunno... bizarre to me.
Something to think about nonetheless.
A few weeks (maybe 5) I started a thread about this subject inspired by a quote in an interview on the WoTC re: City of the Spider Queen.
Apparently, that module takes PCs from 10th to 18th level in 2 months of GAME time, not real time. (ie. 2 month pass in the Forgotten Realms, not two months spent playing the game).
I'm still having trouble getting over this. 8 mid-high levels in 2 months.
Seems a bit... I dunno... bizarre to me.
Something to think about nonetheless.
